You're acting like Drowsy flopped. It hasn't. And tourists do go see it. It's clear that the creators and producers of The Drowsy Chaperone were a bit hesitant about the title, if you read the liner notes in the CD, but look what happened. It just goes to show that maybe it really doesn't matter as long as the show is good.
It's purly subjective and opinionated. If you ask me Wicked is a terrible name for a show. Look up the word in a thesourase and take a look at all the words that pop up: abominable, atrocious, foul, heartless, nasty, rotten, vicious, vile... none of those would be good titles for a musical. You just never know.
I think sometimes a shows "bad" title is part of what captures people's interest. I remember when I heard about Urinetown, I was kind of confused but I thought it sounded really different. Plus, a lot of the jokes of that show come from making fun of the awful title.
I always get turned off when I see blah blah blah: THE MUSICAL
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it." -Stephen Colbert
I think Drowsy has grown on me, and their initial ad campaign was pretty brilliant about dealing with that. But I remember several years ago when I was out with a group of friends and one announced, "Hey, I just got a show! It stars Sutton Foster, it's called The Drowsy Chaperone." And we were all like, WHAT!? Well by the time it comes to Broadway it will have a different name, right? And we all kept saying, "What's the name of your show again? Something about the sleepy what?" It was months before I could remember the name of it, which probably had more to do with the fact that people started talking about it. But I'm glad to see it's been pretty successful.